Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times

[Gingersnap]

Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times
1:02 AM 12/13/2013



If you think the Earth is hot now, try wearing plate armor in the Middle Ages.

A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.

The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.

“Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,” Kullman found. “Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.”

Kullman also wrote that “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.” The “Holocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.”

According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods “were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.”

For many years now, there was an alleged scientific consensus that the Earth was warming due to humans releasing greenhouse gases into the air — primarily through burning fossil fuels. However, temperatures stopped rising after 1998, leaving scientists scrambling to find an explanation to the hiatus in warming.

Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools.

This is certainly more consistent with the historical record of population growth and agricultural changes than Warmism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/st...#ixzz2nShz2jR7

[daveman]

I think it's hilarious how the warmer cult insists that a tiny amount of plant food in the air is responsible for heating the planet until we all die, but the 3.39 X 10¹⁷ cubic miles of fusing hydrogen nuclei in the neighborhood -- which will kill you if you don't take proper precautions -- has nothing to do with it.

But then, you can't tax sunlight and use it to promote global socialism, can you?

[Gingersnap]

What's odd is the obvious historical record. Grain yields and types of grains follow a very temperature-dependent formula that isn't politically dependent. Population growth, expansion, wage/price relationships for land and grain, and so on are also well understood.

The story of European migration, population, and technological innovation is largely the story of climate and grain. Hunters and herders are much less affected (or affected in very different ways) by cereal crop fortunes.

Greenland was green at one time (or green enough). That wasn't early advertising. We know that crops were grown there. The Brits produced wine in Roman times and that wine-making went on and off with climate changes. The rise of urban populations in Medieval Europe was dependent on the rise of wages demanded by rural peasants who were in short supply when agricultural efforts suddenly expanded due to climate change (the Black Death helped but was not the entire answer).

History and climate history didn't suddenly start around 1949.

[Curiosity's Dead Cat]

What's odd is the obvious historical record. Grain yields and types of grains follow a very temperature-dependent formula that isn't politically dependent. Population growth, expansion, wage/price relationships for land and grain, and so on are also well understood.

The story of European migration, population, and technological innovation is largely the story of climate and grain. Hunters and herders are much less affected (or affected in very different ways) by cereal crop fortunes.

Greenland was green at one time (or green enough). That wasn't early advertising. We know that crops were grown there. The Brits produced wine in Roman times and that wine-making went on and off with climate changes. The rise of urban populations in Medieval Europe was dependent on the rise of wages demanded by rural peasants who were in short supply when agricultural efforts suddenly expanded due to climate change (the Black Death helped but was not the entire answer).

History and climate history didn't suddenly start around 1949.

I've always been amused by the warmers and the efforts they go through to deny the forces of nature in the mix. We know the RWP and the MWP were about 1000 years apart, and that the MWP was about 1,000 years ago. That alone should make one go "hmmm." Then by sheer luck, the Industrial Age lined up pretty well with the end of the Little Ice Age, and that near term temperature minimum becomes the starting point for the recent history argument about GW. When you start at a low point, it's pretty likely that temps are going to go up, much like the card game where you have to choose over and under, after the LIA, there was a "2" pulled off the deck and where most normal people would guess higher, yes, the temps went up. Today, we just pulled a queen or a king and these same people are still calling "up." Should history be our guide, we are looking at a drop to start here in the near future, returning to another LIA of unknown severity.

Great post. Since we didn't have any actual means to measure temperature through this time, and regular measurements and recordkeeping were scarce until late in the 1700s at best, trying to equate true measurements to estimates and treating them as if they had similar accuracy is a crapshoot at best.

[Gingersnap]

Since we didn't have any actual means to measure temperature through this time, and regular measurements and recordkeeping were scarce until late in the 1700s at best, trying to equate true measurements to estimates and treating them as if they had similar accuracy is a crapshoot at best.

No kidding. In terms of precision and accuracy, it's still a crapshoot in most locations using land-based, volunteer help. Oh, the stories I could tell........

[Novaheart]

I think it's hilarious how the warmer cult insists that a tiny amount of plant food in the air is responsible for heating the planet until we all die, but the 3.39 X 10¹⁷ cubic miles of fusing hydrogen nuclei in the neighborhood -- which will kill you if you don't take proper precautions -- has nothing to do with it.

But then, you can't tax sunlight and use it to promote global socialism, can you?

In ingles s'ill vous plait.

[Billy Jingo]

In ingles s'ill vous plait.

The sun.